State Can Clarify 'Equivalence Of Qualification' For Recruitment Even After Commencement Of Selection Process: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that the State Government is competent to clarify its position regarding 'equivalence of qualification' for recruitment to a post, even after commencement of selection process.

While dealing with the issue of status of the qualification of Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application ('PGDCA') issued by Ewing Christian College, Allahabad which is an autonomous constituent institute of the University of Allahabad, Justice Ajit Kumar held,

“It is true that rules of the game cannot be changed once the advertisement has given selection process effect to and there may be circumstances where many candidates may be possessing such qualification may not have applied but in my considered view as I have already held in the judgment that a clarificatory stand by the State Government can always be taken during continuance of selection process.”

Petitioner had applied for selection on the post of Review Officer and Assistant Review Officer in U.P. Secretariat with requisite qualification presenting certificate of Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application issued by Ewing Christian College. However, his candidature was rejected by U.P. State Public Service Commission (UPPSC) on grounds that such certificate cannot be treated as equivalent to the 'O' Level certificate issued by the Department of Electronics and Accreditation of Computer Courses ('DOEACC Society').

Counsel for petitioner submitted circular letter dated 20.10.2023 issued by the State Government wherein for the post of Assistant Review Officer, certificates issued by certain Universities were taken to be equivalent to 'O' level certificate. University of Allahabad is also mentioned in this list.

It was further argued that State being the primary employer had the jurisdiction to frame rules regarding recruitment and not UPPSC and if there was any doubt regarding the equivalence of qualifications, UPPSC had to refer the matter to the State Government.

However, counsel for UPPSC argued that selections had been finalised and the merit list had been closed, it would not be just to re-open the merit list of 2016 selection.

In Vikas & 80 Others v. State of U.P. & 2 Others, and other connected matters, the Allahabad High Court had held that Courts must refrain from formulating qualifications for recruitment policy as they are in the exclusive domain of the employer. It further held that the Court can only interfere in the issue of equivalence of qualification when they have been expressly provided in the Rules governing the recruitment process, and not otherwise.

Justice Kumar held the Rules as well as the advertisement provided that one must possess 'O' level certified issued by DOEACC Society or equivalent qualification or certificate, and therefore, the matter fell within the exclusive domain of the State Government and not UPPSC, as claimed while rejecting the petitioner's application.

Since the State Government had clarified that the 'O' level certificate issued by the University of Allahabad was equivalent to PGDCA certificate required for recruitment, the Court held that the certificate issued by its autonomous constituent institute will be equivalent to the 'O' level certificate required for recruitment and the UPPSC had no jurisdiction to reject the candidature on that ground.

“Since it lies in the domain of the State Government to clarify its position regarding equivalence of qualification, more especially when the rules and the advertisement did provide for equivalent qualification to be applicable, I do not see anything wrong or otherwise illegal if this clarification issued by the State Government is made applicable to the selection underway/ stage of preparation of final select list.”

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed with a direction to U.P. State Public Service Commission to treat petitioner's candidature on merit for the post of ARO.

Case Title: Abhinav Tiwari v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others [WRIT - A No. - 19283 of 2023]

Counsel for Petitioner: Rajesh Kumar, Shree Prakash GiriCounsel for Respondent: Diptiman Singh, P.K. Srivastava, G.K. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Avneesh Tripathi, Rahul Jain, Ashok Srivastava

Click Here To Read/Download Order